![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
November 28, 2004
winning developers
In the early days of this blog, I talked about improving the semweb's "whirlpool rap", stressing that we need a clearer way to talk about it to non-technical types. Since then, I've learned there's an even greater challenge: convincing developers that RDF and the Semantic Web are genuinely worth the training time required before they pigeonhole it and write it off as hype. Choosing tech is critical for software developers and managers. In the last twenty-four years of wading through languages, API's, platforms, and design approaches, I've learned to bet on established winners because there's no more costly mistake than choosing tech that later (or sooner) dies on the vine. Picking the wrong tech can mean wasting months of personal time learning something that won't be used later, either because it's not a marketable skill or because a better approach is found. For companies, picking the wrong tech can really suck, and it keeps on sucking, since new tech means a lack of qualified developers, a need to have them "learn on your dime", and long-term maintenance concerns ... "Will we be able to find qualified developers in the future if the current team disappears?" To me, it's more important that I can find and replace developers and not have to pay for training, ramp-up time, and course corrections. I just don't like gambling on new tech. So how do we managers choose tech intelligently? What crystal ball can we use? One approach is to stick with clear winners. When I rummage through the software section at bookstores, my goal is usually to take the temperature of what's selling, not to find some nifty new thing to learn. If I see five books on Struts, I know I'll have an easier time finding Struts developers. New tech appears on my horizon as the one solo book on the shelf ... AspectJ, for example. In a month or more, I may see three more AspectJ books. I watch these trends, and they're usually pretty accurate. That said, I've yet to see a single RDF book at a local bookstore, and we're betting our self-funded year long project on RDF and the Semantic web. So why are we using RDF? Would we use it again? These are the questions!
Comments So why are you using RDF? Compare the last new XML tech: SOAP. On some projects that are about a year and a half old, we're pretty clear that using SOAP was, in fact, a mistake, and we've mostly recovered (you can *tell* people "oh, it has a SOAP interface" and they nod, but telling them it has a REST interface doesn't get anywhere unless they're already well clued - ie. they've already tried using SOAP interfaces for real. The amazon data point helps there, though.) And there were (and are) *lots* of SOAP books... Looking forward, is RDF more of the same, complexity in search of a justification... or does it really make a difference? posted by Mark Eichin at November 28, 2004 09:05 PMi guess it depends on how you look at it: 1) RDF is an XML style persistence/publishing technology (the knee-jerk "hey, looks like XML" reaction) 2) RDF is a brand-new data model architecture that solves many difficult problems using entailment, etc. SOAP is #1. RDF is #2. posted by Timothy Falconer at November 29, 2004 10:53 AM |
About Me Contact Me being real blogosphere events interconnectedness isabel making money musings olpc photo stories saving the world semantic web squeak etoys tidepool and storymill usability waveplace computer literacy new videos from st john pilot back from st john immuexa turns ten XO donor comments photos from haiti and st john pilots haitian pilot starts give two, keep none story: fall 2007 good press RDF Intro Angela Talk: a semweb introduction W3C Semantic Web Original Road Map SciAm Article SemanticWeb.org RDF Resource Guide SchemaWeb SUMO Full Article Index April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 December 2006 September 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 link to this site
![]()
|
||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
|
"Big Fractal Tangle" is a phrase used by Tim Berners-Lee at ISWC 2003
to describe his vision of the Semantic Web (used with permission) "Tidepool" and "Storymill" are trademarks of Immuexa Corporation. Website design copyright © 2003-2004 by Immuexa. |
|||||||||